485
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales Third Among others, Thorndike (1920; Thorndike,
Edition, 2008). MI theory, in contrast, asserts Bregman, Cobb, & Woodyard, 1927) con-
that individuals who demonstrate a particu- ceived of intelligence as the sum of
lar aptitude in one intelligence will not nec- three parts: abstract intelligence, mechan-
essarily demonstrate a comparable aptitude ical intelligence, and social intelligence.
in another intelligence (Gardner, 2006b). For Thurstone (1938, Thurstone & Thurstone,
example, an individual may possess a profile 1941) argued that intelligence could better
of intelligences that is high in spatial intelli- be understood as consisting of seven pri-
gence but moderate or low in interpersonal mary abilities. Guilford (1967; Guilford &
intelligence or vice versa. This conception Hoepfner, 1971) conceptualized intelligence
of intelligence as multiple rather than sin- as consisting of four content categories, five
gular forms the primary distinction between operational categories, and six product cate-
MI theory and the conception of intelligence gories; he ultimately proposed 150 different
that dominates Western psychological the- intellectual faculties. Sternberg (1985, 1990)
ory and much of common discourse. offered a triarchic theory of intelligence that
A second key distinction concerns the ori- identified analytic, creative, and practical
gins of intelligence. While some contem- intelligences. Finally, Ceci (1990, 1996) has
porary scholars have asserted that intelli- described multiple cognitive potentials that
gence is influenced by environmental factors allow for knowledge to be acquired and rela-
(Diamond & Hopson, 1998; Lucas, Morley, tionships between concepts and ideas to be
& Cole, 1998; Neisser et al., 1996; Nisbett, considered.
2009), many proponents of the concept of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelli-
general intelligence conceive of intelligence gences, however, is perhaps the best known
as an innate trait with which one is born and of these pluralistic theories. This notoriety
which one can therefore do little to change is due, in part, to the sources of evidence
(Eysenck, 1994; Herrnstein & Murray, on which Gardner drew, and, in part, to
1994; Jensen, 1980, 1998). In contrast, MI the- its enthusiastic embrace by the educational
ory conceives of intelligence as a combina- community (Armstrong, 1994; Kornhaber,
tion of heritable potentials and skills that 1999; Shearer, 2004). Many hundreds of
can be developed in diverse ways through schools across the globe have incorporated
relevant experiences (Gardner, 1983). For MI principles into their mission, curriculum,
example, one individual might be born with and pedagogy; and hundreds of books have
a high intellectual potential in the bodily- been written (in numerous languages) on the
kinesthetic sphere that allows him or her to relevance of MI theory to educators and edu-
master the intricate steps of a ballet per- cational institutions (Chen, Moran, & Gard-
formance with relative ease. For another ner, 2009). In 2005, a 10-acre “science experi-
individual, achieving similar expertise in ence park” opened in Sonderberg, Denmark,
the domain of ballet requires many addi- with more than 50 different exhibits through
tional hours of study and practice. Both which participants can explore their own
individuals are capable of becoming strong profile of intelligences (Danfoss Universe,
performers – experts – in a domain that 2007). In what follows, we outline the major
draws on their bodily-kinesthetic intelli- claims of this far-reaching theory as well as
gence; however, the pathways along which some of the adjustments to the theory made
they travel to become strong performers over the past 25 years.
may well differ quantitatively (in terms of It should be pointed out that Gard-
speed) and perhaps qualitatively (in terms of ner’s conceptualization of multiple intelli-
process). gence does not belong exclusively to Gard-
MI theory is neither the sole challenger ner; other scholars and practitioners have
to Spearman’s (1904, 1927) conception of made numerous applications of the prin-
general intelligence nor the only theory cipal tenets, sometimes with little regard
to conceive of intelligence as pluralistic. for Gardner’s own claims. In this chapter,
Table 24.2. Gardner’s Eight Intelligences only definitive addition to the original set
of seven intelligences. In Gardner’s judg-
Intelligence Description ment, neither existential intelligence nor any
of the other proposed intelligences suffi-
Linguistic An ability to analyze ciently meet the criteria for identification
information and create as a unique intelligence (a discussion of the
products involving oral and reliability of these criteria in identifying can-
written language such as
didate intelligences is offered in Part 2 of
speeches, books, and memos.
this chapter). In future years, new proposed
Logical- An ability to develop equations
Mathematical and proofs, make intelligences might be found to meet the
calculations, and solve criteria for identification as a unique intel-
abstract problems. ligence (Battro & Denham, 2007; Chen &
Spatial An ability to recognize and Gardner, 2005). Conversely, future research
manipulate large-scale and may reveal that existing intelligences such
fine-grained spatial images. as linguistic intelligence are more accurately
Musical An ability to produce, conceived of as several subintelligences.
remember, and make These inevitable adjustments and adapta-
meaning of different patterns tions of MI theory, however, are less impor-
of sound.
tant than the theory’s overarching principle:
Naturalist An ability to identify and
namely, that intelligence is better conceived
distinguish among different
types of plants, animals, and of as multiple and content-specific rather
weather formations that are than unitary and general.
found in the natural world. In describing intelligence(s) as pluralistic,
Bodily- An ability to use one’s own MI theory conceives of individuals as pos-
Kinesthetic body to create products or sessing a profile of intelligences in which
solve problems. they demonstrate varying levels of strengths
Interpersonal An ability to recognize and and weakness for each of the eight intelli-
understand other people’s gences. It is a misstatement within the MI
moods, desires, motivations, framework, then, to characterize an individ-
and intentions.
ual as possessing “no” capacity for a particu-
Intrapersonal An ability to recognize and
lar intelligence (Gardner, 1999). Individuals
understand one’s own moods,
desires, motivations, and may certainly demonstrate low levels of a
intentions. particular intelligence, but, except in cases
involving severe congenital or acquired brain
damage, all individuals possess the full range
of intelligences. It would be equally inac-
In the 25-year history of the theory, curate within the MI framework, however,
numerous researchers have proposed addi- to assert that everyone demonstrates supe-
tional intelligences that range from moral riority or giftedness in at least one of the
intelligence to humor intelligence to cook- intelligences (Gardner, 1999). As a pluralis-
ing intelligence (Boss, 2005; Goleman, 1995). tic theory, the fundamental assertion of MI
Gardner (2006b) himself has speculated theory is that individuals do demonstrate
about an existential intelligence that reflects variation in their levels of strength and weak-
an individual’s capacity for considering “big ness across the intelligences. Unfortunately,
questions” about life, death, love, and being. this variation does not mean that every indi-
Individuals with high levels of this hypoth- vidual will necessarily demonstrate superior
esized intelligence might likely be found in aptitude in one or more of the intelligences.
philosophy departments, religious seminar- After 25 years of reflection on the theory,
ies, or the ateliers of artists. To date, how- Gardner accentuates two primary claims:
ever, naturalistic intelligence has been the (1) All individuals possess the full range of
THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES 489
intelligences – the intelligences are what (Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006). Like other
define human beings, cognitively speaking; broad theories, such as evolution or plate
(2) no two individuals, not even identical tectonics, which synthesize experimental,
twins, exhibit precisely the same profile of observational, and theoretical work, MI the-
intellectual strengths and weaknesses. These ory cannot be proved or disproved on the
constitute the principal scientific claims of basis of a single test or experiment. Rather, it
the theory; educational or other practical gains or loses credibility as findings accumu-
implications go beyond the scope of the the- late over time. Indeed, subsequent findings
ory, in a strict sense. have prompted ongoing review and revi-
sions of MI theory, such as the addition
of new intelligences and the conceptualiza-
Part 2: Review of Issues and tion of intelligence profiles. Much of the
Pseudo-Issues Spawned by empirical work conducted since 1983 lends
the Theory support to various aspects of the theory.
For instance, studies on children’s theory of
During the years since its inception, MI the- mind and the identification of pathologies
ory has drawn considerable attention, pri- that involve losing a sense of social judgment
marily from psychologists and educators. provide strong evidence for a distinct inter-
The attention has come in many forms, from personal intelligence (Gardner, 1993; Gard-
scholarly critiques regarding the develop- ner, Feldman & Krechevsky, 1998a, 1998b,
ment, scope, and empirical basis of the the- 1998c; Malkus, Feldman, & Gardner, 1988;
ory, to educational curricula that claim to Ramos-Ford, Feldman, & Gardner, 1988).
develop children’s intelligences in an opti- Relatively few critiques of MI theory have
mal way. This attention has led to new addressed the criteria used to identify and
developments in the theory and promis- evaluate a candidate intelligence. This state
ing practical applications in the classroom. of affairs is somewhat unexpected, since
Yet, several reviews and critiques of MI the- the criteria serve as the theory’s foundation.
ory reveal misunderstandings regarding its Moreover, by drawing on cross-disciplinary
empirical foundation and theoretical con- sources of evidence, the criteria represent
ception of human cognition. In this section, a pioneering effort to broaden the way
we use these misunderstandings as a spring- in which human intellectual capacities are
board for exploring the theory in greater identified and evaluated. White (2006) is one
depth, with the purpose of illuminating its of the few scholars to question this effort. He
major claims and conceptual contours. suggests that the selection and application
of the criteria is a subjective – and there-
fore flawed – process. A psychologist with
The Foundation and Province
a different intellectual biography, he argues,
of MI Theory
would have arrived at a different set of cri-
Some critics of MI theory argue that it is teria and, consequently, a different set of
not grounded in empirical research and can- intelligences.
not, therefore, be proved or disproved on The professional training that preceded
the basis of new empirical findings (Water- MI theory no doubt played an important role
house, 2006; White, 2006). In fact, MI the- in its formulation. We do not argue the fact
ory is based entirely on empirical findings. of this influence, simply its effect. MI theory
The intelligences were identified on the basis is the product of several years spent examin-
of hundreds of empirical studies spanning ing human cognition through several disci-
multiple disciplines (Gardner, 1983, 1993; plinary lenses, including psychology, sociol-
Gardner & Moran, 2006). Noted, too, is ogy, neurology, biology, and anthropology,
the relative lack of empirical studies specif- as well as the arts and humanities. The cri-
ically designed to test the theory as a whole teria that emerged from this examination
490 KATIE DAVIS, JOANNA CHRISTODOULOU, SCOTT SEIDER, AND HOWARD GARDNER
degree to which they encourage and support Cooking is another candidate intelligence
artistic expression. that is more properly viewed as an amalgam
Candidate intelligences raise additional of existing intelligences. In preparing a meal,
considerations. Scholars (including Gardner for instance, one might draw on interper-
himself) have explored the possibility of sonal intelligence to decide on a menu that
a moral intelligence (Boos, 2005; Gardner, will please the guests; linguistic intelligence
1997, 2006b). Morality is clearly an impor- to read the recipe; logical-mathematical
tant component of human society, but it intelligence to adjust the ingredient mea-
is not clear that it is felicitously described surements for the size of the party; and
as an intelligence. MI theory is descriptive, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence to dice the
not normative. As computational capacities vegetables, tenderize the meat, and whip
based in human biology and human psychol- the cream. The preparation of a fine meal
ogy, intelligences can be put to either moral may also draw on the only full-fledged addi-
or immoral uses in society. Martin Luther tion to the original list of intelligences: natu-
King, Jr., used his linguistic intelligence to ralist intelligence. Cooks will draw on their
craft and deliver inspiring speeches about naturalist intelligence to distinguish among
the quest for civil rights through peaceful ingredients and perhaps tweak a recipe by
means. In stark contrast, Slobodan Milose- combining ingredients in an unexpectedly
vic used his linguistic intelligence to call for flavorful way. Of course, sensory systems
the subjugation and eventual extermination are important in cooking, but it is the oper-
of entire groups of people. The two men also ations performed upon the sensory infor-
deployed their interpersonal intelligences in mation that yields intelligent (or nonintel-
distinct ways. MI theory merely delineates ligent!) outcomes.
the boundaries of biopsychological capaci-
ties; the way in which one decides to use
these capacities is a separate matter.
Part 3: Scholarly Work in the Wake
A closer look at another oft-proposed
of MI Theory
candidate – humor intelligence – under-
scores a second ploy. There is no need to add
Since its inception, the theory of multiple
a new intelligence when it can be explained
intelligences has been a subject of schol-
through a combination of existing intelli-
arly inquiry and educational experimenta-
gences. Thus, humor can be seen as a playful
tion. We here examine three major fronts:
manipulation of our logical capacity. Come-
research, assessment, and educational inter-
dians draw on their logical-mathematical
ventions.
intelligence to turn the logic of everyday
experience on its head. They also employ
their interpersonal intelligence to “read” an
Research
audience and make decisions about the tim-
ing of individual jokes and the overall direc- A notable point of departure is the prob-
tion of their act. In this way, it is more appro- lem of how to decide which research is rel-
priate to speak of comedians as exercising evant to testing MI theory as it has been
a particular blend of logical-mathematical described in these pages. Some research
and interpersonal intelligences rather than that is described in MI terms may be
as displaying separate humor intelligence. irrelevant (e.g., informal and unvalidated
In a similar manner, Battro and Denham questionnaires, assessments using paper and
(2007) make an intriguing case for a digi- pencil or multiple-choice tests alone),
tal intelligence, but it is not clear whether whereas research that does not mention MI
or how digital intelligence can be untan- explicitly could be important (e.g., trans-
gled from logical-mathematical intelligence fer and correlations between competen-
(with a smidgeon of bodily-kinesthetic intel- cies, aptitude-treatment interactions, parsi-
ligence tacked on). monious models of cognitive neuroscience
THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES 495
brain activation patterns, etc.). Other some intelligences. Were this to be the case,
conceptions of intellect have faced a similar the neuropsychological underpinnings of MI
challenge in psychology (Mayer & Caruso, theory would be challenged. It could also
2008). be the case that individuals with intellectual
strengths in a particular area show similar
brain profiles, and that those who exhibit
Cognitive Neuroscience and MI
contrasting intellectual strengths show a
Evidence for the several intelligences came contrasting set of neural profiles. It might
originally from the study of how mental fac- also be the case that certain neural structures
ulties were associated or dissociated as a con- (e.g., precociously developing frontal lobes)
sequence of damage to the brain, and espe- or functions (speed of conduction) place one
cially to cortical structures. With the surge “at promise” for intellectual precocity more
in the types of neuroimaging tools in the generally, but that certain kinds of experi-
recent decades, far more specified inquiries ences then cause specialization to emerge –
relevant to MI are possible. Nowadays a con- in which case, a profile of neurally discrete
sensus obtains that there is not a one-to- intelligences will ultimately consolidate.
one correspondence between types of intel- Similar lines of argument can unfold
ligence and areas of the cortex. Nonetheless with respect to the genetic basis of intelli-
it is still germane to detail how the con- gence. To this point, those with very high
structs outlined by MI can relate to brain or very low IQs display distinct combina-
structure and function. tions of genes, though it is already clear that
Until this point, most neuroimaging there will not be a single gene, or even a
studies of intellect have examined the brain small set of genes, that codes for intellect.
correlates of general intelligence (IQ). These What remains to be determined is whether
studies have revealed that general intelli- those with quite distinctive behavioral pro-
gence is correlated with activations in frontal files (e.g., individuals who are highly musi-
regions (Duncan et al., 2000) as well as sev- cal, highly linguistic, and/or highly skilled
eral other brain regions (e.g., Jung & Haier, in physical activities) exhibit distinctive
2007), with speed of neural conduction genetic clusters as well. Put vividly, can the
(Gogtay et al., 2004). An analogous kind of Bach family or the Curie family or the Polgar
study can be carried out with respect to spe- family be distinguished genetically from the
cific intelligences (cf. emotional intelligence general population and from one another?
as reviewed by Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, Or, as with the neural argument just pro-
2008). Ultimately it would be desirable pounded, certain genetic profiles may aid
to secure an atlas of the neural correlates one to achieve expertise more quickly, but
of each of the intelligences, along with the particular area of expertise will necessar-
indices of how they do or do not operate in ily yield quite distinctive cognitive profiles in
concert. Researchers should remain open to the adult.
the possibility that intelligences may have It is germane to inquire whether, should
different neural representations, in different neural evidence and genetic evidence favor
cultures – the examples of linguistic intelli- the notion of a single general intelligence and
gence (speaking, reading, writing) comes to provide little evidence for biological mark-
mind. ers of the specific intelligences, MI theory
From a neuropsychological point of view, will be disproved scientifically. A question
the critical test for MI theory will be the will still remain about how individuals end
ways in which intellectual strengths map up possessing quite distinct profiles of abili-
onto neural structures and connections. It ties and disabilities. Whether the answer to
could be, as proponents of general intelli- that question will lie in studies drawn from
gence claim, that individuals with certain genetics, neurology, psychology, sociology,
neural structures and connections will be anthropology, or some combination thereof,
outstanding in all or at least, predictably, in remains to be determined.
496 KATIE DAVIS, JOANNA CHRISTODOULOU, SCOTT SEIDER, AND HOWARD GARDNER
descriptions of how the theory contributes ligence. Rather than proceeding from or
to education (e.g., Barrington, 2004), how creating psychometric instruments, the the-
MI can be applied in the curriculum (e.g., ory emerged from an interdisciplinary con-
Dias Ward & Dias, 2004; Nolen, 2003; sideration of the range of human capaci-
Özdemir, Güneysu, & Tekkaya, 2006; Wal- ties and faculties. The theory has garnered
lach & Callahan, 1994), and how MI operates considerable attention, far more in edu-
within or across schools (e.g., Campbell & cational circles than in the corridors of
Campbell, 1999; Greenhawk, 1997; Hickey, standard psychological testing and experi-
2004; Hoerr, 1992, 1994, 2004; Wagmeister mentation. Consistent with that emphasis,
& Shifrin, 2000). MI approaches have been numerous educational experiments build on
credited with better performance and reten- MI theory, and many of them claim suc-
tion of knowledge as compared to a tra- cess. However, because MI theory does
ditional approach (for science instruction not dictate specific educational practices,
for fourth-graders) (Ozdemir et al., 2006) and because any educational intervention is
and with understanding content in more multifaceted, it is not possible to attribute
complex ways (Emig, 1997). Similarly, MI school success or failure strictly to MI
approaches in the curriculum have been interventions. Direct experimental tests of
credited with giving teachers a framework the theory are difficult to implement and
for making instructional decisions (Ozdemir so the status of the theory within aca-
et al., 2006). Teele, who has devised one demic psychology remains indeterminate.
of the principal MI self-administered instru- The biological basis of the theory – its
ments, suggests that “intrinsic motivation, neural and genetic correlates – should be
positive self-image, and a sense of responsi- clarified in the coming years. But in the
bility develop when students become stake- absence of consensually agreed upon mea-
holders in the educational process and sures of the intelligences, either individu-
accept responsibility for their own actions” ally or in conjunction with one another, the
(1996, p. 72). psychological validity of the theory will con-
tinue to be elusive.
What does the future hold for MI the-
Part 4: Conclusion: Looking Ahead ory? It seems reasonable to expect that these
ideas will continue to be of interest to edu-
In a number of ways, MI theory differs from cators and other practitioners. Having ini-
other psychological approaches to intel- tially catalyzed an interest in elementary
THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES 499
schools, particularly with respect to stu- tional goals, value judgments, must emerge
dents with learning problems, the theory has from discussions and debates among respon-
been picked up by schools of all sorts, as sible leaders and citizens. Once goals have
well as museums and other institutions of been laid out, the question then arises:
informal learning. MI ideas are also invading How and in what ways, can MI ideas aid
other occupational spheres, such as business, in the achievement of these goals? To be
and have proved of special interest to those sure, a tight answer to that question can
charged with hiring, assembling teams, or rarely be given. Nonetheless, over time it
placing personnel (Moran & Gardner, 2006). should certainly become clearer which MI
Uses of MI ideas within and outside for- ideas, in combination with which goals,
mal educational settings hold great promise. have pedagogical effectiveness and which
In particular, new digital media and vir- do not. Within Project Zero, the research
tual realities offer numerous ways in which group with which Gardner has been asso-
learners can master required knowledge and ciated since its inception in 1967, MI ideas
skills. At one time, it may have seemed have proved particularly congenial with the
advisable or even necessary to search for goal of “education for deep understanding”
the “one best way” to teach a topic. Now, (Gardner 1999, 2006b).
at a time when computers can deliver con- Whether or not explicitly recognized as
tents and processes in numerous ways, and such, MI ideas are likely to endure within
when learners can take increasing control the worlds of education, business, and daily
of their own educational destinies, a plu- practice – like the terms emotional intelli-
rality of curricula, pedagogy, and assess- gence and social intelligence (Goleman 1995,
ments figures to become the norm. Individ- 2006), they are already becoming part of
ualized education does not depend on the the conventional wisdom. The status of
existence of MI theory; and yet MI-inspired MI theory within psychology, biology, and
practices provide promising approaches for other social and natural sciences remains to
effective teaching and learning (Birchfield be determined. Attempts will be made to
et al., 2008). Moreover, as lifelong learning define and redefine the set of intelligences,
becomes more important around the world, to evaluate the criteria by which they are
the prospects of developing, maintaining, identified and measured, to consider their
and enhancing the several intelligences gain relationships to one another, and their status
urgency. vis-à-vis “general intelligence.” In all prob-
Initially, MI ideas were introduced in ability, like other attempts at intellectual
the United States and the first MI-inspired synthesis, some facets will become accepted
experiments took place there. But over the in scholarship, while other parts will fade
last two decades, MI ideas and practices away or remain topics for debate. What is
have spread to numerous countries and most likely to last in MI theory is the set of
regions. There are both striking similarities criteria for what counts as an intelligence
and instructive differences in the ways in and the idea of intelligence as pluralistic,
which these regions implement MI ideas, with links to specific contents in the human
formally and informally. An initial sur- and primate environments. The particular
vey appears in Multiple Intelligences Around list of intelligences and subintelligences will
the World (Chen, Moran, & Gardner, doubtless be reformulated as a result of
2009). In addition to chronicling numerous continuing studies in psychology, neuro-
implementations of MI theory in more than science, and genetics.
a dozen countries, this work also provides
a fascinating and original portrait of how
“memes” about intelligence take and spread References
in different educational soils.
Gardner has long maintained that MI can- Adams, M., & Feldman, D. H. (1993). Project
not be an educational goal in itself. Educa- Spectrum: A theory-based approach to early
500 KATIE DAVIS, JOANNA CHRISTODOULOU, SCOTT SEIDER, AND HOWARD GARDNER
education. In R. Pasnak & M. L. Howe (Eds.), Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and
Emerging themes in cognitive development. New the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag. York: HarperCollins.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the Danfoss Universe. (2007). Retrieved July 1, 2007,
classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for from http://www.danfossuniverse.com.
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C.
Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diver- (2007). Intelligence and educational achieve-
sity in higher education: How multiple intel- ment. Intelligence, 35, 13–21.
ligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees
Education, 9, 421–434. of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intel-
Battro, A. M., & Denham, P. J. (2007). Hacia ligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from
una inteligencia. Buenos Aires, Argentina: birth through adolescence. New York, NY:
Academia Nacional de Educación. Dutton.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1911). A method of measur- Dias Ward, C., & Dias, M. J. (2004). Ladybugs
ing the development of the intelligence of young across the curriculum. Science and Children,
children. Lincoln, IL: Courier. 41(7), 40–44.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The develop- Duncan, J., Seitz, R.J., Kolodny, J., Bor, D.,
ment of intelligence in children. Baltimore, MD: Herzog, H., Ahmed, A., Newell, F.N., &
Williams & Wilkins. Emslie, H. (2000). A neural basis for gen-
Birchfield, D., Thornburg, H., Megowan- eral intelligence. Science, 289(5478), 457–
Romanowicz, C., Hatton, S., Mechtley, B., 460.
Dolgov, I., & Burleson, W. (2008). Embodi- Emig, V. B. (1997). A multiple intelligences
ment, multimodality, and composition: Con- inventory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 47.
vergent themes across HCI and education for Eysenck, H. (1994). Manual for the Eysenck per-
mixed-reality learning environments. Journal sonality questionnaire (EPQ-R Adult). San
of Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Diego, CA: Educational Industrial Testing
2008, Article ID 874563. Service.
Boss, J. (2005). The autonomy of moral intelli- Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cog-
gence. Educational Theory, 44(4), 399–416. nitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory
and what emotional intelligence is not. Psy- of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic
chological Inquiry, 15(3), 234–238. Books.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory
intelligences and student achievement. Alexan- of multiple intelligences (10th anniversary ed.).
dria, VA: ASCD. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ceci, S. J. (1990). On intelligence, more or less: A Gardner, H. (1997). Is there a moral intelligence?
bioecological treatise on intellectual development. In M. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. handbook. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence (rev. ed.). Cam- Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. all students should understand. New York, NY:
Chen, J.-Q., & Gardner, H. (1997). Assessment Simon & Schuster.
based on multiple-intelligences theory. In D. Gardner, H. (2006a). Five minds for the future.
P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contempo- Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
rary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and Gardner, H. (2006b). Multiple intelligences: New
issues (Vol. 2, pp. 77–102). New York, NY: horizons. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Guilford Press. Gardner, H. (2006c). Replies to my critics. In J. A.
Chen, Jie-Qi, & Gardner, H. (2005). Multiple Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The
intelligences: Assessment based on multiple- rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 277–344).
intelligence theory. In D. Flanagan & P. Har- Chicago, IL: Open Court.
rison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assess- Gardner, H., Feldman, D. H., & Krechevsky,
ment: Theories, tests and issues. New York: M. (Gen. Eds.). (1998a). Project Zero frame-
Guilford Press. works for early childhood education: Volume
Chen, J., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2009). Mul- 1, Building on children’s strengths: The expe-
tiple intelligences around the world. New York, rience of Project Spectrum (Volume authors
NY: Jossey-Bass. J.-Q. Chen, M. Krechevsky, & J. Viens, with
THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES 501
E. Isberg). New York, NY: Teachers College used MI-based instructional planning”. Teach-
Press. Translated into Chinese, Italian, Span- ers College Record, 106(1), 77–86.
ish, and Portuguese. Herrnstein, R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell
Gardner, H., Feldman, D. H., & Krechevsky, curve: Intelligence and class structure in Ameri-
M. (Gen. Eds.). (1998b). Project Zero frame- can life. New York, NY: Free Press.
works for early childhood education: Volume 2, Hoerr, T. (2004). How MI informs teaching at
Project Spectrum early learning activities (Vol- New City School. Teachers College Record,
ume author J-Q. Chen, with E. Isberg and M. 106(1), 40–48.
Krechevsky). New York, NY: Teachers Col- Hoerr, T. R. (1992). How our school applied mul-
lege Press. Translated into Chinese, Italian, tiple intelligences theory. Educational Leader-
Spanish, and Portuguese. ship, 50(2), 67–68.
Gardner, H., Feldman, D. H., & Krechevsky, M. Hoerr, T. R. (1994). How the New City School
(Gen. Eds.). (1998c). Project Zero frameworks applies the multiple intelligences. Educational
for early childhood education: Volume 3, Project Leadership, 52(3), 29–33.
Spectrum preschool assessment handbook (Vol- Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New
ume author M. Krechevsky). New York, NY: York, NY: Free Press.
Teachers College Press. Translated into Chi- Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The sci-
nese, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. ence of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger/
Gardner, H., & Laskin, E. (1995). Leading minds: Greenwoood.
An anatomy of leadership. New York, NY: Jensen, A. (2008). Why is reaction time
BasicBooks. correlated with psychometric ‘g’? Current
Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science Directions in Psychological Science, 2(2), 53–
of multiple intelligences theory: A response 56.
to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, Jung, R. E. & Haier, R. J. (2007). The parieto-
41(4), 227–232. frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intel-
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J. N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, ligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence.
K. M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A. C., et Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(2), 135–
al. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human 154.
cortical development during childhood Kornhaber, M. (1999). Multiple intelligences the-
through early adulthood. PNAS, 101(21), 8174– ory in practice. In J. H. Block, S. T. Everson,
8179. & T. R. Guskey (Eds.), Comprehensive school
Goleman D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New reform: A program perspective. Dubuque, IA:
York, NY: Bantam Books. Kendall/Hunt.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S. (2004).
science of human relationships. New York, NY: Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from research
Bantam Books. and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson Educa-
Greenhawk, J. (1997). Multiple intelligences tion.
meet standards. Educational Leadership, 55(1), Krechevsky, M. (1998). Project Spectrum preschool
62–64. assessment handbook. New York, NY: Teach-
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intel- ers College Press.
ligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Krechevsky, M., & Gardner, H. (1990). The
Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The anal- emergence and nurturance of multiple intel-
ysis of intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw- ligences: The Project Spectrum approach.
Hill. In M. J. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the
Haier, R. J., & Jung, R. E. (2007). Beautiful minds development of exceptional skills and tal-
(i.e., brains) and the neural basis of intelli- ents. Leicester, UK: British Psychological
gence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(2), Society.
174–178. Lucas, A., Morley, R., & Cole, T. (1998). Ran-
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in cre- domised trial of early diet in preterm babies
ativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & and later intelligence quotient. British Medical
C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity Journal, 317, 1481–1487.
(pp. 135–145). New York, NY: Plenum Luhrmann, T. M. (2006). On spirituality. In J. A.
Press. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The
Hickey, G. (2004). “Can I pick more than one rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 115–142).
project? Case studies of five teachers who Chicago, IL: Open Court.
502 KATIE DAVIS, JOANNA CHRISTODOULOU, SCOTT SEIDER, AND HOWARD GARDNER
Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. Shearer, B. (1999). Multiple intelligences develop-
(1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem- mental assessment scale. Kent, OH: Multiple
solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), Intelligences Research and Consulting.
4–19. Shearer, C. B. (2004). Using a multiple intelli-
Malkus, U. C., Feldman, D. H., & Gardner, H. gences assessment to promote teacher devel-
(1988). Dimensions of mind in early child- opment and student achievement. Teachers
hood. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), Psychological College Record, 106(1), 147–162.
bases for early education (pp. 25–38). Oxford, Shearer, C. B. (2007). The MIDAS: Professional
UK: John Wiley. manual (rev. ed.). Kent, OH: MI Research and
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. Consulting.
G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intel- Silver, H., & Strong, R. (1997). Integrating learn-
ligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), ing styles and multiple intelligences. Educa-
507–536. tional Leadership, 55(1), 22.
Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelli- Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. (1973). Skill in chess.
gences in the workplace. In H. Gardner, Mul- American Scientist, 61, 394–403.
tiple intelligences: New horizons (pp. 213–232). Spearman, Charles. (1904). General intelli-
New York, NY: BasicBooks. gence, objectively determined and measured.
Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2007). “Hill, skill, American Journal of Psychology. 15, 201–
and will”: Executive function from a multiple- 293.
intelligences perspective. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London,
Executive function in education: From theory to UK: Macmillan.
practice (pp. 19–38). New York, NY: Guilford Stanford-Binet Intelligences Scales (SB5), Fifth
Press. Edition. (2003). Rolling Meadows, IL: River-
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, side Publishing. http://www.riverpub.com/
A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, products/sb5/scoring.html.
D., Loehlin, J., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic
Urbina, S. (1996) Intelligence: Knowns and theory of human intelligence. New York, NY:
unknowns. American Psychologist 51, 77–101. Cambridge University Press.
Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind. New
it: Why schools and cultures count. New York, York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
NY: W. W. Norton. Teele, S. (1996). Redesigning the educational sys-
Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences in the tem to enable all students to succeed. NASSP
classroom. Educational Leadership, 124(1), 115– Bulletin, 80(583), 65–75.
119. Thorndike, E. (1920). A constant error in psycho-
Özdemir, P., Güneysu, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). logical ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Enhancing learning through multiple intelli- 4, 25–29.
gences. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), Thorndike, E., Bregman, E., Cobb, M., & Wood-
74–78. yard, E. (1927). The measurement of intelligence.
Perkins, D., & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional New York, NY: Teachers College Bureau of
aspects of intelligence. In J. Collis, S. Messick, Publications.
& U. Scheifele (Eds.), Intelligence and personal- Thurstone, L. (1938). Primary mental abilities.
ity: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Fac-
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. torial studies of intelligence. Chicago, IL: Uni-
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. versity of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in chil- Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A.
dren. New York, NY: International Universi- (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelli-
ties Press. gences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34(5),
Posner, M. I. (2004). Neural systems and individ- 487–502.
ual differences. Teachers College Record, 106(1), Wagmeister, J., & Shifrin, B. (2000). Thinking
24–30. differently, Learning differently. Educational
Ramos-Ford, V., Feldman, D. H., & Gardner, Leadership, 58(3), 45.
H. (1988). A new look at intelligence through Wallach, C., & Callahan, S. (1994). The 1st grade
project spectrum. New Horizons for Learning, plant museum. Educational Leadership, 52(3),
8(3), 6–15. 32–34.
THE THEORY OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES 503